If (and that is a big if) Bush offered to nominate me for thr Attorney General, I would refuse and I am sure there are many very capable persons that would refuse also. Everything about my life would be spread in the news even going back as far as being caught in a whorehouse. I was happyly married for 47 years but I am sure the times that I went to the steam bath with my friend would be told in detail embarrassing my family.

I know people that nothing that they did was wrong. Trouble is they didn’t do anything right either.

We do that with or without Democrat interference. But that is honestly one of the better values of conservatism among gays; the fact that we can and do disagree, and that we all end up stronger and more well-rounded for the experience.

And now to Samantha:

We shouldn’t be defending potty pickups, hookering, park pickups, and the like from the pretend-pious that we’ve let dominate our party.

“We” are defending nothing of the sort. In fact, it’s the opposite; “we” are AGREEING with those people who you insultingly call “pretend-pious” and how they feel about “potty pickups, hookering, park pickups, and the like”.

Simple reason why: those things are wrong. And it needs to be made clear that those things are wrong. Just because I may not agree with someone’s views on one subject doesn’t mean that I can’t agree with them on something else, and this is a slam-dunk.

And this is not about fighting the liberals. This is about the difference between right and wrong.

The most powerful and obvious difference between us and liberals is that liberals demand that someone resign for having sex with a prostitute, but when it comes to someone who not only had sex with a prostitute, but ran a prostitution ring out of his own apartment and used his Congressional powers to facilitate it, they make them head of the Banking and Finance Committee.

We seriously debate whether they should be in Congress at all, and we sure as hell don’t give them plum committee chairmanships.

The Senator was only being human. Why can’t we have legal whorehouses (yes, men whorehouses) where all men can go to releave the tension? Just wondering…

I agree with you. The media saturation we’re witnessing is partly voyeurism. It also has to do with a failed Republican giving indirect permission to Democrats to affirm their own failings.

I can’t imagine why some men find public bathrooms appealing places for sexual activity. I just don’t get it. I don’t even find them appealing places for the purposes for which they are built.

What I wanted to get across, and I am afraid that I did it very poorly. It appears that the Democrats are getting more of a charge out of Sen. Craig being caught in a bathroom than they do from sexual intercourse itsself. What I am trying to say is that in the last 75 years enjoying sex is not half as thrilling to most people now than the sex scandal itself. I think the Senator was born years to late.

1. “A view of human nature that emphasizes error and weakness as “human”…”

Here, he makes the false claim that my recognition of the imperfect nature of humans necessarily emphasizes error and weakness. Simple recognition doesn’t emphasize anything beyond the recognition itself, just as recognizing a dark cloud in the sky doesn’t mean it’s raining.

2. “…need not exclude reason and virtue as possibilities… Yet it TENDS to…”

Here, he admits a big weakness by making an assumption about what everyone else (one might even say humanity) might think when faced with the recognition of #1 above. He’s not discussing what is, but what he thinks may be or what he thinks is a general tendency. (This kind of thinking has caused humanity much destruction.) Projection, perhaps? Again, the realization that humans commit errors does not mean that we have to in any given situation (the macro vs. micro again) — it simply means that error (whether actual or potential) is part of life.

3. “As for HardHobbit’s new flailing at #104: Entirely self-referential or in his head, as I indicated earlier; not worth any more pixels from me.”

Translation: I’m in over my head.

A view of human nature that emphasizes error and weakness as “human” need not exclude reason and virtue as possibilities… Yet it TENDS to, as its weight of emphasis remains on error and weakness, and on aspects of human nature that are shared by animals, or less-than-distinctively human, incidentally making it a category error. - -
Whereas a view of human nature that emphasizes reason and virtue as “human”, i.e., as wonderfully and uniquely available to human beings, has decidedly not excluded error and weakness as possibilities, precisely since it advocates reason and virtue as means of addressing them…
Unless you’re HardHobbit and dislike hearing it, in which case, “straw man” games and other misunderstandings are called for.

—————————–

As for HardHobbit’s new flailing at #104: Entirely self-referential or in his head, as I indicated earlier; not worth any more pixels from me.

Notice how he spends part of his comment criticizing my use of the word ’sin’ when I have included ‘error’ and ‘mistake’, as if I am only considering a view of humanity from the standpoint of a deity — and as if ’sin’ could only mean as much. Grasping, he is.

Having tried to saddle me with a viewpoint I did not express (setting up a false dilemma in order to criticize something — anything — I write), he cannot comprehend that his self-righteous ‘opposite view’ (as he would like to think) depends entirely upon the existence of a choice, but one that requires the basis of imperfection. I hate to be the one to break it to him, but even Ayn Rand made mistakes. (I can just see the votive candles being doused with his tears.)

And so he proceeds to compare himself to an animal, self-satisfied that he chooses to ‘rise above’ animalism. Apparently it has not dawned on him to compare himself to something higher than himself — something that might even resemble perfection, unattainable as humanity (even his) might make the goal. Telling, no?

All humans are imperfect — that is simply part of being human; in this context, the use of ‘imperfect’ means having sinned, able to sin, will sin. Recognizing this does not mean a human has to sin in any given situation. The problem with Calarato is that he cannot sense the difference between the macro view of humanity and the micro view (or perhaps he chooses not to see or perhaps he feigns he doesn’t see for the sake of being argumentative). Perhaps I should have been much more clear that in using the term ‘humanity’, I meant man or a man’s life, but I would think the word ‘humanity’ would make that rather obvious.

Larry Craig could have made many better choices. One can even say he should have. The demand for the consequences he might (and likely will) suffer is based upon this. But the very existence of any consequences that society constructs (resignation, censure, jail, fines, a spanking, etc.) is predicated on the existence of sin (or error or mistakes or boo-boos or f*** ups or whatever kind of language suits you). Without it, Calarato’s concept of ‘rising’ would not exist.

And are we really arresting people for tapping their toes and waving a finger at a stranger? If that were the case, then most of the straight men I know are in trouble — as a (by attraction-status) straight woman, I’ve had to put up with this sort of behavior in broad daylight, much less in a restroom, all my life.

And what about the guy who rubs his crotch against my shoulder on the bus during the rush-hour? Or the drunk guy in the bar who claims I woudn’t reject him if I could get a look at his johnson (which he then proceeds to try to whip out with his drink-confused fingers — and gets thrown out of the bar as a result).

As for whether or not a bi person causes this kind of trouble on a regular basis, I can say that my bi-polyamourous friends are often better parents than any sort of couple; at least they always have somebody to stay home with the kids.

Chase,

(Just to get the minutiae out of the way, Madonna’s popularity here in the Seattle area was cemented with Borderline, although my memory is hazy because this was a bit before I became aware of much popular music. [I was too young for the clubs.] You’re right, of course, that Like a Virgin was her first worldwide smash.)

While I agree that this and the Gerry Studds affair happened quite awhile ago, that doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant and is a possibly dangerous idea to apply to either history or to the present. Although you’re still young and the early ’80s is nearly your lifetime, there are some things we should never forget. History is doomed to repeat itself if we do so.

As for the Democratic Party and whether the waves of applause he received from his fellow Democrats still reverberate, do you remember how Democrats defended even the behavior of Bill Clinton, saying his personal conduct while a public official is none of anyone’s business but his?

I find that liberals don’t believe in consequences for bad behavior/decisions or perhaps liberalism is a means to mitigate same. I don’t like the GOP’s religiousness, but neither do I like the Democratic Party’s cynical and deliberate ambivalence, holding on to each seat of power regardless of any other consideration.

“Sin” isn’t a category I’m introducing here… you are. (And others may prefer to also… but, I haven’t.) Everything you’ve said is at least somewhat “off”, just due to your bad starting point. Although I could switch over to that language, if you wish.

I have in NO way said that humans are perfect. Indeed, quite the contrary. The issue I addressed is simply this: our respective understandings of the meaning of such terms - and such states - such as ‘humanity’ or ‘being human’.

Your view emphasizes making errors - such that Craig should be viewed as someone who is ‘only human’, as in your preferred quote, “To err is human”. It is a common view, I admit.

My view emphasizes rising above errors - such that Craig should be viewed as someone who, in fact, denied his own humanity by not choosing to exercise it nearly enough. And Craig could restore his humanity to himself - that is to say, partly restore his honor - if he did the right thing, right now. (Which is to admit his error more forthrightly; then resign from office.)

HardHobbit, as we see here, you like to set up false dilemmas - then accuse others (falsely, or should I say ignorantly?) of having done so. In debating with someone whom you imagine to be me - but whom I am not - who had tried to claim humans are perfect and thereby set up a false dilemma, you are merely debating yourself. Do have fun with yourself

The recognition that one can rise above sin (or error or to make a mistake, whatever), to reject it, to refuse to engage in it, would require a recognition in the potential to sin. The choice demands as much from our human nature. Were humans perfect, we would cease to be human, except that our concept of ‘humanity’ would be vastly different. We would not recognize sin (or error or mistakes) as such because we would not be capable of committing them.

To recognize human weakness and to recognize human capacity to ‘rise above it’ are not mutually exclusive, but Calarato has assumed (wrongly) that stating humanity’s capacity for error means a view of humanity that is malevolent or dysfunctional. One cannot rise above anything that doesn’t exist.

In other words: that the concept “humanity” for you is about sinking down, not rising up. Please count me among those for whom the concept “humanity” is, and always will be, about rising up.

Ugh, that was a mental picture I could have lived without.

you might almost appear to suggest that “humanity” is about weaknesses such as adulterous restroom hookups. If so, I disagree.

What’s distinctive and good about humankind, as compared to other animals, is reason. To be truly human, is to choose to exercise one’s distinctively human capacities - such as reason - so as to act better than an animal.

Thanks for saying that, ILC. I was going to make the same point, then I thought, why bother.
But, yeah, “humanity” is what we use when we overcome our base nature, not when we give into it.